Other conditions decisions — 2021

The Board dismissed the appeal of the Veteran's request for Vocational Readiness and Employment (VR&E) services through VA, as the appellant requested withdrawal prior to a decision.

The Board has determined that additional development is needed to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's right and left leg disabilities, including whether they are related to his service-connected bilateral flatfeet or pre-existed his military service.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's current right leg disability is at least as likely as not related to his service, thus granting service connection for this condition.

The Veteran's appeal was dismissed due to his death, and the Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this appeal at this time.

The Board has remanded the claims for service connection for dementia and neurobehavioral effects due to exposure at Camp Lejeune, as they may be related to presumed exposure to contaminated water supplies. Further development is needed to confirm any possible temporary duty in Vietnam and a medical opinion is required on the etiology of the conditions.

The Board has remanded the case due to conflicting evidence regarding whether the Veteran's cause of death was related to his military service, including exposure to herbicide agents. The Court ordered a new VA examination and opinion.

The Board has remanded the case due to outstanding private treatment records and a need for a VA examination to determine if the Veteran's tremors are related to service or pre-existed service.

The Board denied service connection for a memory disability as part of the Veteran's service-connected thoracic and lumbosacral spine disability, finding that there is no current evidence of a memory or cognitive disability.

The Veteran's death was not caused by a service-connected disability. The cause of death, respiratory failure, is not related to his service-connected conditions or any other service-related factors.

The Board is remanding the case to determine if an earlier claim for Social Security Administration (SSA) death benefits can be construed as a prior claim for VA Survivors Pension, and whether a 'Report of Contact' form was prepared or should have been prepared at the time of the appellant's contact with the RO in 2006.

The Board denied the Appellant's claim of recognition as the Veteran’s surviving spouse for purposes of eligibility for entitlement to service connection for the cause of the Veteran’s death due to lack of valid marriage under VA regulations.

The Board has dismissed the appeal as moot because VA has restored 30 months and 25 days of entitlement to Chapter 33 educational assistance benefits, leaving no question of law or fact to decide regarding the recoupment issue.

The Board has remanded the case due to a lack of updated VA treatment records. The TDIU claim will be readjudicated after these records are obtained.

The Board denied the appellant (R.V.)'s claim to be recognized as the Veteran's surviving spouse for VA purposes due to her prior marriage and lack of knowledge about the Veteran's existing marriage.

The Veteran's son is seeking benefits under Chapter 18 for a child born with spina bifida or other covered birth defects due to the father's exposure to herbicide agents in service. The appeal is remanded as there are no private treatment records from Modesto City Hospital associated with the case.

The Board dismissed the appeal because the appellant died during the pendency of the appeal, and thus has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits.

The appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's death.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings were denied as the evidence did not show that his service-connected conditions warranted a higher rating.

The Board has determined that a new VA medical opinion is needed to address the Veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 due to his fall and prescribed medication, as the previous opinions are insufficient.

The Board has remanded the case due to procedural issues related to simultaneously contested claims. The AOJ must ensure compliance with the required procedures before the appeal can be adjudicated.